72 page witness statement of Ann Eaton, made to COLP on 14 / 08/ 1991

[Jane]

Really April.

Great account of the White House Farm Shootings of 1985. Its a classic account of a whodunit ; either Jeremy Bamber or his mentally ill sister Sheila, of whom only one could have caused the deaths since Sheila was found dead herself. The book leaves you in no doubt that Jeremy Bamber is guilty but still very much leads you to make your own judgement based on the evidence thoroughly presented. Its very obvious based on the circumstantial evidence that Bamber is guilty. It would surely simply be too much for so many people to be biased or self interested, including the police, family of those murdered and primary witness Julie Mugford, who attested that Jeremy had admitted wanting to kill his family. This is one of those very interesting cases whereby had the police done a better job, the rightful killer (Bamber or Sheila) would have been found from day 1. As it was with no DNA evidence in 1985, exhibits not found by the police (the rifle moderator) at the start and a bungled investigation, the truth may never be known with any certainty. One thing for sure is that Jeremy Bamber knows himself! Understand that a new book is to come out soon by former MP Andrew Hunter (pro Bamber) called 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

No Adam. The book leaves YOU in no doubt and YOU experience it as leading YOU to make judgement. I don't believe circumstantial evidence to be strong enough to put someone away for life. Please don't include ME when you say YOU.

[grahameb]

Look up the first appeal Adam. Not everything can be found in Wilkes' book.

My bad. It was not at the first appeal. It was the CCRC that ruled that. So they prevented it from getting to the appeal stage. Here is a quote from Jeremy Bamber.org

Photographs showing Sheila Caffell’s body had been moved were not accurate as the police officers on the scene all made statements saying that they didn’t touch or move anything and this is stronger evidence than the photographs.

[Adam]

That is a review from someone else April. 

People have been convicted on just circumstantial evidence. And a motive or no alibi.

Are you not aware of the forensic evidence ?

[Jane]

That is a review from someone else April. 

People have been convicted on just circumstantial evidence. And a motive or no alibi.

Are you not aware of the forensic evidence ?

It matters little from WHERE it came, Adam. The author cannot be totally objective and will guide the reader along which ever road they feel appropriate. People MAY have been convicted on what you say but a conviction doesn't mean they have imprisoned the right person. Much of the forensic evidence seems to b e highly questionable.

[grahameb]

That is a review from someone else April. 

People have been convicted on just circumstantial evidence. And a motive or no alibi.

Are you not aware of the forensic evidence ?

Yes. There is none. Now that is a surprise is it not? You would expect to find a mountain of forensic evidence where there had been a fight for life wouldn't you? But hey presto. None whatsoever. Now why6 is that do you think? Could it be that the police destroyed it all? More than likely. Now the real question is WHY? did they destroy it.

[grahameb]

A bit of reading for you about Mugford from jeremybamber.org.
http://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/

[Jane]

Yes. There is none. Now that is a surprise is it not? You would expect to find a mountain of forensic evidence where there had been a fight for life wouldn't you? But hey presto. None whatsoever. Now why6 is that do you think? Could it be that the police destroyed it all? More than likely. Now the real question is WHY? did they destroy it.

Yes Grahame, I find it intriguing that, for several weeks, there was a whole STACK of evidence which either fitted the crime, OR was manipulated to fit the crime. Then, quite suddenly, NONE of that evidence fitted and there was a whole NEW stack of evidence, which given that the first stack either fitted or was made to fit, to which the same observations must similarly apply.

[Adam]

Yes. There is none. Now that is a surprise is it not? You would expect to find a mountain of forensic evidence where there had been a fight for life wouldn't you? But hey presto. None whatsoever. Now why6 is that do you think? Could it be that the police destroyed it all? More than likely. Now the real question is WHY? did they destroy it.

Have you forgotten about the '14 forensic reasons why Sheila could not have comitted the massacre'. A thread you previously commented on.

If Sheila could not do it, it must be a burglar. But Jeremy said 'dad rang'...

[Adam]

A bit of reading for you about Mugford from jeremybamber.org.
http://jeremybamber.org/julie-mugford/

I see you are starting to quote Jeremys own site a lot.

The same site that says Sheila shot herself downstairs.

[Adam]

Yes Grahame, I find it intriguing that, for several weeks, there was a whole STACK of evidence which either fitted the crime, OR was manipulated to fit the crime. Then, quite suddenly, NONE of that evidence fitted and there was a whole NEW stack of evidence, which given that the first stack either fitted or was made to fit, to which the same observations must similarly apply.

Eh ?

[Adam]

It matters little from WHERE it came, Adam. The author cannot be totally objective and will guide the reader along which ever road they feel appropriate. People MAY have been convicted on what you say but a conviction doesn't mean they have imprisoned the right person. Much of the forensic evidence seems to b e highly questionable.

There are a few highly publicised incident where convicted individuals are released. Sion Jenkins being one after two juries could not reach a verdict in a retrial.

However Jeremy has not been so successful in the last 29 years. Pointing towards his guilt.

[Adam]

Perhaps Graheme can say how Sheila committed the massacre. He said yesterday Jeremy 'is' innocent. So it must be simple to explain. He created a scenario thread recently, so obviously is interested in them.

Please include Nevilles two phone calls. Nevilles brutal beating & Sheila's two shots, in the corner of her parents bedroom. As well as Sheila reloading twice.

[Caroline]

Yeah yeah.

What book ? You know what book. One of the 5 star reviews below.


Who could forget this awful crime, a very well written book, couldnt put it down, very factual, allows you to make your own mind up, remember this case well, well i did back then, and my opinion is the same now, as far as im concerned, common sense prevailed at the trial and bamber was found guilty of all the murders, what i do believe is that jeremy believes he is innocent and will fight to the end to prove it, if he secures an appeal in the future and is released, it will be on a technicality, wait and see, i hope he rots in jail then onto hell. Rest in peace sheila, nicholas, daniel, neville and june.

Like I said, your main source of material is Wilkes's book with was writted years ago and why you keep repeating OLD info!

[Caroline]

Thought the first appeal was about the judges summing up ?

Have browsed the 2002 appeal transcripts. Do not recall anything about Julie's NOTW deal. However I have previously posted a section from it about Sheila's legs being pulled after the second shot.

The information is on the forum!! There  is a statement by JM

[Jane]

Perhaps Graheme can say how Sheila committed the massacre. He said yesterday Jeremy 'is' innocent. So it must be simple to explain. He created a scenario thread recently, so obviously is interested in them.

Please include Nevilles two phone calls. Nevilles brutal beating & Sheila's two shots, in the corner of her parents bedroom.

I believe it's been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that the reason we don't throw "stage sets" around is because none of us was there, yet you spend copious amounts of time trying to lure us into doing exactly what we ask you to refrain from and demanding that we do it in a certain way.